Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

MetricDepth: Enhancing Monocular Depth Estimation with Deep Metric Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read MetricDepth claims that adding a deep-metric-learning regularizer driven by ground-truth depth differences improves monocular depth estimation accuracy.

desk verdict A clean, incremental depth-estimation loss with consistent but small gains; the paper deserves review, but the evaluation needs error bars, multiple seeds, and a validation split to rule out hyperparameter overfitting. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20390 v1 pith:NWXDPKBC submitted 2024-12-29 cs.CV

Chunpu Liu , Guanglei Yang , Wangmeng Zuo , Tianyi Zan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords monoculardepthestimationdeepmetriclearningfeatureregularizationdifferential-basedsampleidentificationmulti-rangestrategycontrastivelossdifferentialNYUV2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Monocular depth estimation usually supervises only the output depth map, leaving the model's internal features unconstrained. MetricDepth claims that adding a deep-metric-learning regularizer to the feature map, with no extra labels, improves depth accuracy. The regularizer treats each pixel's ground-truth depth as a pseudo-label: pixels whose depths are nearly equal are pulled together in feature space, and pixels whose depths differ are pushed apart, with the push margin scaled by how far apart the depths are. Experiments on NYU Depth V2 and KITTI across three model architectures report consistent gains in standard error and threshold metrics. If this holds, feature-level supervision of this kind is a cheap, task-agnostic way to strengthen existing monocular-depth pipelines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the depth-differential map $D_r = |D_a - D_s|$ computed between the anchor feature map and feature maps collected by random shifts within the same image or from other images in the batch. Thresholds on $D_r$ turn continuous depth annotations into sample identities: below $r_p$ is positive, above $r_n$ is negative, and the multi-range strategy partitions negatives into intervals $(r_l^j, r_h^j)$ with per-interval margins $m_{\mathrm{ra}}^j$. The regularizing loss is Euclidean feature distance pulled down for positives and pushed above the range-specific margin for negatives, added as $L_{\mathrm{final}} = L_{\mathrm{re}} + L_{\mathrm{depth}}$.

What would settle it

Take a model trained without MetricDepth and compute the empirical distribution of feature distances for pixel pairs binned by ground-truth depth differential. If high-differential pairs are frequently closer in feature space than low-differential pairs, the core proxy is violated and the regularizer would be fighting the model's natural geometry; alternatively, an ablation that replaces the depth differential with a random pairing while keeping the multi-range loss shape would show whether the gains depend on depth semantics at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that deep metric learning can be adapted to monocular depth estimation by replacing class-based sample identification with differential-based sample identification. The absolute difference in ground-truth depth between an anchor feature and a collected sample feature, $D_r = |D_a - D_s|$, defines whether the sample is positive (small depth differential), negative (large differential), and which negative subgroup it belongs to. Negative samples are split into depth-differential ranges, each with its own regularizing margin, so that nearby-depth negatives are not over-pushed and far-depth negatives are not ignored. Adding the resulting regularizing loss $L_{\mathrm{re}}$ to the scale-invariant depth loss reduces AbsRel and RMSE and raises threshold accuracy for the lightweight UNet, BTS, and NeWCRFs models on both NYU Depth V2 and KITTI.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on treating the absolute difference in ground-truth depth between two pixels as a faithful measure of how different their learned features should be; if two pixels have similar depth but very different appearance or context, the loss forces their features together regardless of whether that helps prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding MetricDepth to LT, BTS, and NeWCRFs improves AbsRel, RMSE, and $\delta<1.25$ accuracy on both NYU Depth V2 and KITTI, so the gains are not tied to one architecture or scene type.
  • Multi-range margin scheduling beats the uniform negative-sample strategy, which implies that how far a negative sample's depth is from the anchor should control how strongly it is repelled.
  • The method needs no annotations beyond the depth labels already used for supervision, so it can be dropped into standard supervised MDE training without extra data collection.
  • Feature visualizations show the regularized features align more closely with ground-truth depth structure and are more discriminative at depth transitions, which is the mechanism the paper claims for the accuracy gains.
  • On NYU Depth V2, NeWCRFs trained with MetricDepth reaches accuracy comparable to or better than several more recent MDE methods, indicating feature-level regularization can partly close the gap between older and newer architectures.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the same differential-based identification should transfer to other dense regression tasks with a continuous scalar ground truth, such as surface-normal angle or height estimation, provided the scalar field has metric meaning.
  • Editorial extension: a control experiment that pairs pixels by random or appearance-based similarity, while keeping the same loss shape, would reveal how much of the gain comes from depth semantics rather than from generic feature smoothing or hard-example mining.
  • Editorial extension: the hyperparameter dependence acknowledged by the paper suggests an adaptive threshold and margin predictor, jointly learned during training, is the most direct route to a version that does not require per-model tuning.
  • Editorial extension: the visual results point specifically to better thin-object and boundary perception; an edge-focused evaluation, such as accuracy restricted to depth-gradient regions, would test whether that qualitative improvement is systematic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. MetricDepth proposes a deep metric learning regularizer for monocular depth estimation. The method collects feature samples for each anchor feature from the same feature map (via random shifts) and from other images in the batch, then labels samples as positive or negative according to the absolute difference of ground-truth depth values (Sec. III-B). Negative samples are further split into depth-differential ranges, each with its own margin, in the multi-range strategy (Sec. III-C). The regularizing loss is added to the scale-invariant depth loss (Eq. 14). The paper reports experiments with three MDE models (LT, BTS, NeWCRFs) on NYU Depth V2 and KITTI, claiming consistent improvements across metrics, plus ablations on the LT model.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, MetricDepth is a useful and lightweight plug-in regularizer for supervised MDE: it requires no extra annotations, is architecture-agnostic, and the multi-range strategy is a plausible improvement over a uniform margin. The paper deserves credit for testing across two datasets and three architecturally different models, and for ablating both sample-collection means and the uniform-versus-multi-range negative-sample treatment. However, the central claim of 'significantly enhances' is currently supported only by small, single-run, test-set-selected numbers without error bars; this weakens the strength of the contribution until the experimental protocol is tightened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-E, Tables VI and VII] The hyperparameters (rp, range boundaries, and per-range margins) are selected from relatively large grids without any mention of a validation split. For example, Table VI reports 12 configurations and Table VII reports 12, and the configurations that later appear in Table I for LT+Ours are the best entries from those tables. If the grids were evaluated directly on the standard test benchmark, the reported improvements (e.g., AbsRel 0.140 to 0.136) could be partly due to selection on the test set. Please specify the exact protocol: a fixed validation split used for choosing rp, rl-rh, and mra, or an inner cross-validation; report the selected configurations and the validation-set results alongside the test-set results.
  2. [Sec. IV-D, Tables I and II] The key empirical claim is that improvements are 'significant', but no multiple-seed runs, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported. Several differences are small in absolute terms, e.g., BTS on KITTI AbsRel 0.061 vs 0.060, NeWCRFs on NYU AbsRel 0.089 vs 0.087, and LT on NYU RMSE 0.486 vs 0.473. Without an estimate of run-to-run variance, these differences may be within noise. Please train each model at least 3 times with different seeds (for both baseline and MetricDepth) and report mean +/- std for the main metrics, ideally with a paired comparison.
  3. [Sec. III-B, Eq. (8) and Sec. IV-D] The method rests on the proxy that absolute ground-truth depth difference is a reliable indicator of the desirable feature-space divergence. This is plausible but not analyzed: pixels with similar depth but very different appearance or context are pulled together, while pixels with different depth but similar low-level features are pushed apart. The paper provides no diagnostic showing that this mapping is beneficial in the trained models (e.g., a scatter plot of feature distance vs. depth differential after training, or an analysis of which samples the loss actually regularizes). Please add such an analysis, or at least an experiment comparing against a control that uses the same loss with random sample labels, to demonstrate that the differential labels, rather than the extra regularizing gradient, drive the improvement.
  4. [Sec. III-C, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) leaves unspecified the treatment of samples whose depth differential falls between rp and the first negative range lower bound, or between two negative ranges. If these samples are ignored, this should be stated explicitly in the text, because it affects the effective number of samples contributing to Lre and makes the comparison with the uniform strategy (Eq. 9) less direct. Please clarify the assignment rule for all values of Dr, including the equality cases at rj_l and rj_h.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III-A, Eq. (1)-(2)] The phrase 'randomly selects an integer seed from closet [1, N-1]' appears to be a typo for 'closed interval [1, N-1]'; please correct it. Also, clarify whether the shift seeds are drawn independently for each sample map or once per forward pass.
  2. [Sec. IV-C] Implementation details are sparse: the optimizer, learning rate, batch size, number of training epochs, and input resolution are not reported for the three models. Since the paper claims to follow 'the same training configurations as claimed in their papers', please list the exact settings used, including any changes made when adding MetricDepth.
  3. [Tables I and II] The threshold accuracy columns are labeled 'δ <1.252' and 'δ <1.253'; these should be typeset as δ < 1.25^2 and δ < 1.25^3 to match the definition in Sec. IV-B.
  4. [Sec. III-D, Eq. (13)] The summation index in Eq. (13) runs from 1 to N, while Eq. (5) defines N sample feature maps indexed from 0 to N-1. Please make the indexing consistent.
  5. [Sec. IV-E, Tables VI-VIII] The ablation tables report only AbsRel, RMSE, and δ<1.25; since the method is proposed as a general regularizer, including SqRel, RMSElog, and log10 would allow a fuller assessment of where the gains (or losses) occur.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline NYU gain for LT+Ours is the best row of the Table VI ablation grid, so the claimed improvement is partly a test-set selection rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-D.1 (Table I) and Section IV-E.2 (Table VI); see also Section IV-C.]
    "0.1 0.5-1, 1-1.5, 1.5-2 3, 6, 8 0.1365 0.4731 0.8182 (Table VI) ... LT+Ours 0.1 0.5-1, 1-1.5, 1.5-2 3, 6, 8 0.136 0.473 0.058 0.818 0.967 0.994 (Table I)."

    The exact hyperparameter configuration that achieves the best AbsRel in the Table VI grid (rp=0.1; ranges 0.5-1, 1-1.5, 1.5-2; margins 3, 6, 8; AbsRel 0.1365) is then presented in Table I as the NYU benchmark result for LT+Ours (AbsRel 0.136). Table VI is an ablation run on the same NYU evaluation protocol, and the paper does not state that a validation split was used to pick margins; Section IV-C says the thresholds and margins vary per model and dataset. Consequently the headline improvement is not an independent out-of-sample prediction of the method's gain; it is the selected-best result on the evaluation set, so the reported enhancement is partly forced by the selection procedure rather than by the method alone.

full rationale

The method itself is a well-defined auxiliary loss: Equations 7-13 construct positive/negative sample types and margin-based regularization from ground-truth depth differences, and Equation 14 adds this to the SI output loss. There is no equation-level self-definition in which the claimed improvement is built into the loss by construction, and there is no load-bearing self-citation chain; reference [64] is only a comparison baseline. The one substantive circularity is the coupling between the benchmark tables and the ablation grid: the LT+Ours NYU row in Table I is exactly the best row of the Table VI margin/range search, evaluated on the same NYU benchmark without any stated validation split, and the configurations in Tables I-II are said to vary per model and dataset. This makes the central claim of significant enhancement partly a fitted-input-called-prediction result: the reported gains are in part the best of a test-set grid rather than an independent confirmation. Because the loss is not defined in terms of the reported errors and the method is at least demonstrated across multiple architectures and datasets, the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no physical entities. Its free parameters are the thresholds and margins of the proposed loss, each manually set per model and dataset based on the reported evaluation results. The core domain assumption is that depth difference is a valid proxy for feature divergence.

free parameters (5)
  • Positive differential threshold r_p = 0.1 across all experiments
    Depth differential below which a sample is positive; set to 0.1, selected empirically.
  • Negative range bounds (r_l-r_h) = e.g., 0.5-1, 1-1.5, 1.5-2 on NYU; 1-5, 5-10 on KITTI
    Ranges dividing negative samples into subgroups; tuned per dataset and model (Tables I, II, VI).
  • Regularizing margins m_ra per range = e.g., 3,6,8 (LT NYU); 2,4,6 (BTS NYU); 5,9 (NeWCRFs NYU)
    Margin for each negative subgroup; chosen based on validation or test performance (Tables I, II, VI, VII).
  • Number of within-map samples Nwithin = 10
    Number of shifted feature maps sampled from the same image; determined via ablation (Table III).
  • Number of across-batch samples Nacross = 4
    Number of feature maps sampled from other images in the batch; determined via ablation (Table IV).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Depth differential is a reliable proxy for feature divergence in monocular depth estimation models.
    Sec. III-B states that large depth differentials indicate significant feature divergence and small differentials indicate consistency; the entire method rests on this.
  • domain assumption The regularizing loss L_re combined with a scale-invariant depth loss improves final depth accuracy.
    Sec. III-D assumes that joint supervision on features and output yields better performance than either alone; supported only empirically.
  • domain assumption Euclidean distance in feature space is an appropriate metric for the contrastive objective.
    Sec. III-D says Euclidean distance is adopted as the distance function l without justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MetricDepth: Enhancing Monocular Depth Estimation with Deep Metric Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWXDPKBC

@misc{pith2026241220390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MetricDepth: Enhancing Monocular Depth Estimation with Deep Metric Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWXDPKBC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20390}
}
read the original abstract

Deep metric learning aims to learn features relying on the consistency or divergence of class labels. However, in monocular depth estimation, the absence of a natural definition of class poses challenges in the leveraging of deep metric learning. Addressing this gap, this paper introduces MetricDepth, a novel method that integrates deep metric learning to enhance the performance of monocular depth estimation. To overcome the inapplicability of the class-based sample identification in previous deep metric learning methods to monocular depth estimation task, we design the differential-based sample identification. This innovative approach identifies feature samples as different sample types by their depth differentials relative to anchor, laying a foundation for feature regularizing in monocular depth estimation models. Building upon this advancement, we then address another critical problem caused by the vast range and the continuity of depth annotations in monocular depth estimation. The extensive and continuous annotations lead to the diverse differentials of negative samples to anchor feature, representing the varied impact of negative samples during feature regularizing. Recognizing the inadequacy of the uniform strategy in previous deep metric learning methods for handling negative samples in monocular depth estimation task, we propose the multi-range strategy. Through further distinction on negative samples according to depth differential ranges and implementation of diverse regularizing, our multi-range strategy facilitates differentiated regularization interactions between anchor feature and its negative samples. Experiments across various datasets and model types demonstrate the effectiveness and versatility of MetricDepth,confirming its potential for performance enhancement in monocular depth estimation task.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20390 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration on the main difference between previous deep metric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration on the core idea of our method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An explanation on the feature sample collecting process in our method. In the diagram, the white lines divide the maps into different units. In (a), the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example exposing the weakness of the uniform strategy on negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization examples of predicted depth maps from selected MDE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization examples of predicted depth maps from selected MDE models on KITTI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The change of AbsRel with different number of feature samples under two kinds of feature sample collecting means. regularizing margin on negative samples in a certain range of depth differential can negatively impact the regularization effectiveness, thereby diminishin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualizations on feature maps from selected models on KITTI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey of augmented reality,

    R. T. Azuma, “A survey of augmented reality,” Presence: teleoperators & virtual environments, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355–385, 1997

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications,

    J. Carmigniani, B. Furht, M. Anisetti, P. Ceravolo, E. Damiani, and M. Ivkovic, “Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications,” Multimedia tools and applications , vol. 51, pp. 341–377, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Con- trolvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Wei, D. Jiang, X. Zhang, W. Zuo, and Q. Tian, “Con- trolvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13077, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Siciliano, O

    B. Siciliano, O. Khatib, and T. Kr ¨oger, Springer handbook of robotics . Springer, 2008, vol. 200

    2008

  5. [5]

    Deep learning in robotics: Survey on model structures and training strategies,

    A. I. K ´aroly, P. Galambos, J. Kuti, and I. J. Rudas, “Deep learning in robotics: Survey on model structures and training strategies,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 266–279, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies,

    E. Yurtsever, J. Lambert, A. Carballo, and K. Takeda, “A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies,” IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 58 443–58 469, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Towards fully autonomous driving: Systems and algorithms,

    J. Levinson, J. Askeland, J. Becker, J. Dolson, D. Held, S. Kammel, J. Z. Kolter, D. Langer, O. Pink, V . Pratt, et al., “Towards fully autonomous driving: Systems and algorithms,” in 2011 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2011, pp. 163–168

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Stereo processing by semiglobal matching and mu- tual information,

    H. Hirschmuller, “Stereo processing by semiglobal matching and mu- tual information,” IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 328–341, 2007

    2007

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient large-scale stereo matching,

    A. Geiger, M. Roser, and R. Urtasun, “Efficient large-scale stereo matching,” in Asian conference on computer vision . Springer, 2010, pp. 25–38

    2010

  2. [10]

    Pyramid stereo matching network,

    J.-R. Chang and Y .-S. Chen, “Pyramid stereo matching network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 5410–5418

    2018

  3. [11]

    Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo,

    Y . Yao, Z. Luo, S. Li, T. Fang, and L. Quan, “Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 767–783

    2018

  4. [12]

    Cascade cost volume for high-resolution multi-view stereo and stereo matching,

    X. Gu, Z. Fan, S. Zhu, Z. Dai, F. Tan, and P. Tan, “Cascade cost volume for high-resolution multi-view stereo and stereo matching,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 2495–2504. 12

    2020

  5. [13]

    Depth map prediction from a single image using a multi-scale deep network,

    D. Eigen, C. Puhrsch, and R. Fergus, “Depth map prediction from a single image using a multi-scale deep network,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Monocular depth estimation based on deep learning: An overview,

    C. Zhao, Q. Sun, C. Zhang, Y . Tang, and F. Qian, “Monocular depth estimation based on deep learning: An overview,” Science China Tech- nological Sciences, vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 1612–1627, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Deep learning for monocular depth estimation: A review,

    Y . Ming, X. Meng, C. Fan, and H. Yu, “Deep learning for monocular depth estimation: A review,”Neurocomputing, vol. 438, pp. 14–33, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  9. [17]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022

    2021

  11. [19]

    Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images,

    N. Silberman, D. Hoiem, P. Kohli, and R. Fergus, “Indoor segmentation and support inference from rgbd images,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2012: 12th European Conference on Computer Vision, Florence, Italy, October 7-13, 2012, Proceedings, Part V 12 . Springer, 2012, pp. 746– 760

    2012

  12. [20]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1231–1237, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Single-image depth perception in the wild,

    W. Chen, Z. Fu, D. Yang, and J. Deng, “Single-image depth perception in the wild,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Multi-scale contin- uous crfs as sequential deep networks for monocular depth estimation,

    D. Xu, E. Ricci, W. Ouyang, X. Wang, and N. Sebe, “Multi-scale contin- uous crfs as sequential deep networks for monocular depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 5354–5362

    2017

  15. [23]

    Deep ordinal regression network for monocular depth estimation,

    H. Fu, M. Gong, C. Wang, K. Batmanghelich, and D. Tao, “Deep ordinal regression network for monocular depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 2002–2011

    2018

  16. [24]

    From big to small: Multi-scale local planar guidance for monocular depth estimation,

    J. H. Lee, M.-K. Han, D. W. Ko, and I. H. Suh, “From big to small: Multi-scale local planar guidance for monocular depth estimation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10326, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins,

    S. F. Bhat, I. Alhashim, and P. Wonka, “Adabins: Depth estimation using adaptive bins,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 4009–4018

    2021

  18. [26]

    New crfs: Neural window fully-connected crfs for monocular depth estimation,

    W. Yuan, X. Gu, Z. Dai, S. Zhu, and P. Tan, “New crfs: Neural window fully-connected crfs for monocular depth estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.01502, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P3depth: Monocular depth estimation with a piecewise planarity prior,

    V . Patil, C. Sakaridis, A. Liniger, and L. Van Gool, “P3depth: Monocular depth estimation with a piecewise planarity prior,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 1610–1621

    2022

  20. [28]

    Virtual normal: Enforcing geometric constraints for accurate and robust depth prediction,

    W. Yin, Y . Liu, and C. Shen, “Virtual normal: Enforcing geometric constraints for accurate and robust depth prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 7282– 7295, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Deep metric learning: A survey,

    M. Kaya and H. S ¸. Bilge, “Deep metric learning: A survey,” Symmetry, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 1066, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping,

    R. Hadsell, S. Chopra, and Y . LeCun, “Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping,” in 2006 IEEE computer society con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’06) , vol. 2. IEEE, 2006, pp. 1735–1742

    2006

  23. [31]

    Facenet: A unified embed- ding for face recognition and clustering,

    F. Schroff, D. Kalenichenko, and J. Philbin, “Facenet: A unified embed- ding for face recognition and clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2015, pp. 815– 823

    2015

  24. [32]

    Exploring cross-image pixel contrast for semantic segmentation,

    W. Wang, T. Zhou, F. Yu, J. Dai, E. Konukoglu, and L. Van Gool, “Exploring cross-image pixel contrast for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 7303–7313

    2021

  25. [33]

    Learning depth from single monoc- ular images using deep convolutional neural fields,

    F. Liu, C. Shen, G. Lin, and I. Reid, “Learning depth from single monoc- ular images using deep convolutional neural fields,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 2024– 2039, 2015

    2024

  26. [34]

    Estimating depth from monocular images as classification using deep fully convolutional residual networks,

    Y . Cao, Z. Wu, and C. Shen, “Estimating depth from monocular images as classification using deep fully convolutional residual networks,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 3174–3182, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Monocular depth estimation with augmented ordinal depth relationships,

    Y . Cao, T. Zhao, K. Xian, C. Shen, Z. Cao, and S. Xu, “Monocular depth estimation with augmented ordinal depth relationships,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 2674–2682, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Cornet: Context-based ordinal regression network for monocular depth estimation,

    X. Meng, C. Fan, Y . Ming, and H. Yu, “Cornet: Context-based ordinal regression network for monocular depth estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 4841– 4853, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    idisc: Internal discretization for monocular depth estimation,

    L. Piccinelli, C. Sakaridis, and F. Yu, “idisc: Internal discretization for monocular depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 21 477–21 487

    2023

  30. [38]

    Vision transformers for dense prediction,

    R. Ranftl, A. Bochkovskiy, and V . Koltun, “Vision transformers for dense prediction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 12 179–12 188

    2021

  31. [39]

    Joint task- recursive learning for semantic segmentation and depth estimation,

    Z. Zhang, Z. Cui, C. Xu, Z. Jie, X. Li, and J. Yang, “Joint task- recursive learning for semantic segmentation and depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 235–251

    2018

  32. [40]

    Pad-net: Multi-tasks guided prediction-and-distillation network for simultaneous depth estimation and scene parsing,

    D. Xu, W. Ouyang, X. Wang, and N. Sebe, “Pad-net: Multi-tasks guided prediction-and-distillation network for simultaneous depth estimation and scene parsing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 675–684

    2018

  33. [41]

    Fine-grained semantics-aware represen- tation enhancement for self-supervised monocular depth estimation,

    H. Jung, E. Park, and S. Yoo, “Fine-grained semantics-aware represen- tation enhancement for self-supervised monocular depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 12 642–12 652

    2021

  34. [42]

    Self- supervised monocular depth estimation: Solving the edge-fattening problem,

    X. Chen, R. Zhang, J. Jiang, Y . Wang, G. Li, and T. H. Li, “Self- supervised monocular depth estimation: Solving the edge-fattening problem,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 5776–5786

    2023

  35. [43]

    Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video,

    T. Zhou, M. Brown, N. Snavely, and D. G. Lowe, “Unsupervised learning of depth and ego-motion from video,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 1851–1858

    2017

  36. [44]

    Digging into self-supervised monocular depth estimation,

    C. Godard, O. Mac Aodha, M. Firman, and G. J. Brostow, “Digging into self-supervised monocular depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 3828– 3838

    2019

  37. [45]

    On the uncertainty of self-supervised monocular depth estimation,

    M. Poggi, F. Aleotti, F. Tosi, and S. Mattoccia, “On the uncertainty of self-supervised monocular depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 3227–3237

    2020

  38. [46]

    Monoindoor++: towards better practice of self-supervised monocular depth estimation for indoor en- vironments,

    R. Li, P. Ji, Y . Xu, and B. Bhanu, “Monoindoor++: towards better practice of self-supervised monocular depth estimation for indoor en- vironments,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 830–846, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Iterdepth: Iterative residual refinement for outdoor self-supervised multi-frame monocular depth estimation,

    C. Feng, Z. Chen, C. Zhang, W. Hu, B. Li, and F. Lu, “Iterdepth: Iterative residual refinement for outdoor self-supervised multi-frame monocular depth estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Self-supervised monocular depth estimation with self-reference distillation and disparity offset refinement,

    Z. Liu, R. Li, S. Shao, X. Wu, and W. Chen, “Self-supervised monocular depth estimation with self-reference distillation and disparity offset refinement,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Unsupervised cnn for single view depth estimation: Geometry to the rescue,

    R. Garg, V . K. Bg, G. Carneiro, and I. Reid, “Unsupervised cnn for single view depth estimation: Geometry to the rescue,” in Computer Vision– ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part VIII 14 . Springer, 2016, pp. 740–756

    2016

  42. [50]

    Unsupervised monocular depth estimation with left-right consistency,

    C. Godard, O. Mac Aodha, and G. J. Brostow, “Unsupervised monocular depth estimation with left-right consistency,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 270– 279

    2017

  43. [51]

    Unsupervised monocular depth estimation for night-time images us- ing adversarial domain feature adaptation,

    M. Vankadari, S. Garg, A. Majumder, S. Kumar, and A. Behera, “Unsupervised monocular depth estimation for night-time images us- ing adversarial domain feature adaptation,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Par...

    2020

  44. [52]

    Regu- larizing nighttime weirdness: Efficient self-supervised monocular depth estimation in the dark,

    K. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z. Yan, X. Li, B. Xu, J. Li, and J. Yang, “Regu- larizing nighttime weirdness: Efficient self-supervised monocular depth estimation in the dark,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 16 055–16 064

    2021

  45. [53]

    Unsupervised monocular depth estima- tion in highly complex environments,

    C. Zhao, Y . Tang, and Q. Sun, “Unsupervised monocular depth estima- tion in highly complex environments,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1237–1246, 2022. 13

    2022

  46. [54]

    Robust monocular depth estimation under challenging conditions,

    S. Gasperini, N. Morbitzer, H. Jung, N. Navab, and F. Tombari, “Robust monocular depth estimation under challenging conditions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 8177–8186

    2023

  47. [55]

    Delving into multi-illumination monocular depth estimation: A new dataset and method,

    Y . Liang, Z. Zhang, C. Xian, and S. He, “Delving into multi-illumination monocular depth estimation: A new dataset and method,” IEEE Trans- actions on Multimedia , 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    A discriminative feature learning approach for deep face recognition,

    Y . Wen, K. Zhang, Z. Li, and Y . Qiao, “A discriminative feature learning approach for deep face recognition,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11– 14, 2016, Proceedings, Part VII 14 . Springer, 2016, pp. 499–515

    2016

  49. [57]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo- labels,

    Y . Wang, H. Wang, Y . Shen, J. Fei, W. Li, G. Jin, L. Wu, R. Zhao, and X. Le, “Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo- labels,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 4248–4257

    2022

  50. [58]

    Improved deep metric learning with multi-class n-pair loss objective,

    K. Sohn, “Improved deep metric learning with multi-class n-pair loss objective,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  51. [59]

    Training region-based object detectors with online hard example mining,

    A. Shrivastava, A. Gupta, and R. Girshick, “Training region-based object detectors with online hard example mining,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 761– 769

    2016

  52. [60]

    Non-salient region object mining for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,

    Y . Yao, T. Chen, G.-S. Xie, C. Zhang, F. Shen, Q. Wu, Z. Tang, and J. Zhang, “Non-salient region object mining for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 2623–2632

    2021

  53. [61]

    Searching for mobilenetv3,

    A. Howard, M. Sandler, G. Chu, L.-C. Chen, B. Chen, M. Tan, W. Wang, Y . Zhu, R. Pang, V . Vasudevan, et al. , “Searching for mobilenetv3,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 1314–1324

    2019

  54. [62]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al. , “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    Predicting depth, surface normals and se- mantic labels with a common multi-scale convolutional architecture,

    D. Eigen and R. Fergus, “Predicting depth, surface normals and se- mantic labels with a common multi-scale convolutional architecture,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2015, pp. 2650–2658

    2015

  56. [64]

    Improving deep regression with ordinal entropy,

    S. Zhang, L. Yang, M. B. Mi, X. Zheng, and A. Yao, “Improving deep regression with ordinal entropy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08915, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Attention attention everywhere: Monocular depth prediction with skip attention,

    A. Agarwal and C. Arora, “Attention attention everywhere: Monocular depth prediction with skip attention,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 5861– 5870

    2023

  58. [66]

    Urcdc-depth: Uncertainty rectified cross-distillation with cutflip for monocular depth estimation,

    S. Shao, Z. Pei, W. Chen, R. Li, Z. Liu, and Z. Li, “Urcdc-depth: Uncertainty rectified cross-distillation with cutflip for monocular depth estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Patch-wise attention network for monocular depth estimation,

    S. Lee, J. Lee, B. Kim, E. Yi, and J. Kim, “Patch-wise attention network for monocular depth estimation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 35, no. 3, 2021, pp. 1873–1881

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.